Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-08 CPC PacketI water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, October 8, 2001 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. Approval of Minutes of September 10, 2001. AGENDA Public Hearings - 7 p.m. 1. Case No. V/01-41. A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the construction of a single family residence at 1511 North Main Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District and the Bluffland/Shoreland District. John Hoeschler, representing Elayne Aiple, applicant. (Continued from September 10, 2001 Meeting) 2. Case No. SUP/01-43. A special use permit for a martial arts/dance school with one office at 215 North Williams Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Sara Gilberg, applicant. (Continued from September 10, 2001 Meeting) 3. Case No. V/01-49. A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction of an addition to an existing garage at 115 North Harriet Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing John and Madeline Macindoe, applicant. 4. Case No. V/01-50. A modification to approved plans including a special use permit, variance and design review for the St. Croix Boat and Packet Co., Ticket Office located south of the Main Street Parking Lot (525 South Main Street) in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay, representing St. Croix Boat and Packet Co., applicant. Other Items - Fence Ordinance revisions - Swimming Pool Ordinance revisions CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 . ,/ • Planning Commission Sept 10, 2001 Present Russ Hultman, chairperson Glenna Bealka, Dave Middleton, Dave Peroceschi, Karl Ranum, Paul Teske Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Others Commumty Development Director Steve Russell Absent Robert Gag Mr Hultman called the meeting to order at 7 05 p m Approval of minutes Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval of the minutes of Aug 13, 2001, as presented, motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/01-40 A special use permit for a Type II Home Occupation Permit at 2360 Walnut Creek Dr in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Ron and Patty Johnson, applicants The applicants were present Mrs Johnson explained their house is the first on the block and her hair dressing business would be non -intrusive to the neighborhood She also stated the neighbors were supportive of the proposal Mr Middleton asked if appointments would be scheduled so as to not overlap, Mrs Johnson responded in the affirmative Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unammously Case No V/01-41 A vanance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 0 feet requested) for construction of a single family residence at 1511 N Main St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct and the Bluffland/Shoreland Distnct John Hoeschler, representing Elayne Aiple, applicant It was noted that no action would be taken on this case at the September meeting, the item will be on the Oct 8 agenda However, Mr Hoeschler asked for the Commission's input Mr Hoeschler stated that Ms Aiple owns 3/4 mile of nverfront, with her home located on the northern 2/3 of the property He stated there is a buyer interested in purchasing a portion o the property if he can build a single-family house on the parcel He noted that with the required 100-feet setback from the nver and the 25-foot rear setback, it would be impossible to build a single-family residence without a vanance He noted the property is not located in a residential neighborhood Regarding impact on surrounding properties, he noted the manna goes nght back to the rear property line and the clubhouse nght to the front line, and directly to the east is the Zephyr train He further suggested that under current zoning, RB, the applicant could built two houses connected by a big breezeway • Case No V/01-46 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 25 feet requested) for construction of a porch at 1003 Fifth St N in the RB, Two Family Residential District Todd Sharkey, applicant Mr Sharkey was present He pointed out that the house across the street is closer to the property line that his requested porch will be Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed 7-1, with Mr Wald voting no Case No ANN/01-02 A request for annexation of 2 5 acres of land at 8160 Neal Ave in the AP, Agncultural Preservation Distnct Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choimere, applicant Case No ZAM/01-04 A zomng map amendment to rezone 2 5 acres of land from AP to RA, Single Fanuly Residential at 8160 Neal Ave Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choimere, applicant Case No SUB/01-47 A subdivision of a 2 5 acre lot into four lots at 8160 Neal Ave Greg Johnson, Manchester Homes, representing John and Rebecca Choimere, applicant Greg Johnson was presented, noting that the property in question is surrounded on three sides by the city Mr Zoller pointed out that this request is exactly how ghost platting is supposed to work, commending the Township for having the foresight to plat in this manner The property is being subdivided into four lots, and Mr Ranum asked if all lots were in compliance with zomng requirements, Mr Johnson and Mr Russell responded in the affirmative Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval of Case No ANN/01-02, motion passed unanimously Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval of Case No ZAM/01-04, motion passed unanimously Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval of Case No SUB/01-47 as conditioned, motion passed unanimously III • Case No V/01-48 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 13 feet requested) for construction of a porch at 504 W Hickory St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Jeff Velin, apphcant Mr Velin was present The vanance had previously been granted, but two years had lapsed The applicant was unaware that construction had to begin within two years of approval Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unanimously— -- Other items • evenings a week, but would like the opportunity to offer more classes if the business grows He further noted that it would be highly unlikely that all clients would dnve and park their cars in the lot so the existing parking is sufficient for his needs Regarding the number of parking spaces, Ms Gilberg said that information came from the appraiser when she and her husband purchased the property Ms Gilberg agreed that there was one incident with they had to move their business vehicles before the 7 a m start time due to an emergency situation, and she apologized for that incident Mr Ranum asked if there was an overall Special Use Permit for the building, to which Mr Russell responded in the affirmative Mr Ranum suggested the request is an opportunity to revise the conditions of the SUP, for example, tying the size of a class to the parking requirements He also suggested that consideration might be given to restricting the hours of operation in a residential neighborhood Mr Ranum moved to continue the request pending review of the Special Use Permit for the entire building in relation to on -site parking and delivery issues, an assessment of available parking and hours of operation in a residential neighborhood Mr Zoller seconded the motion, but noted that what is being proposed is probably one of the best uses for the neighborhood Motion to continue passed unanimously Case No V/01-44 A vanance to the side yard setback (25 feet required, 14 feet requested) for construction of a two-story addition at 120 W Wilkins St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Mark Balay, presenting Tom and Sherry Armstrong, applicant Mr Balay provided a full size drawing of the plans He noted the drainage will remain on site and the addition will follow the architectural style of the existing house, both conditions of approval Mr Zoller, seconded by Mr Peroceschi, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unanimously Case No V/01-45 A vanance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 2 feet requested) for construction of an attached 2-car garage at 726 Seventh St S in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Daniel and Mana Poliszuk, applicants The applicants were present They noted that they had been granted a vanance earlier, but a survey indicated that the assumed property line was incorrect and the proposed garage will be two feet from the property lme They stated the affected neighbor at 722 S Seventh St has no problem with their plans Mr Middleton, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unammously • Mark Pominville, 2324 Dnftwood Lane, said he had not expenenced a lot of problems in the past, but questioned whether the school use might involve building expansion at some point m the future Sharon Teat, 2109 Dundee Place, said her biggest concern is adding more traffic to County Road 5 Mr Peroceschi asked how long the school might remain at Oakridge Church Mr DeJong said he was not sure, noting that the school has no association with the church Mr Peroceschi noted that other than a concern with traffic, neighbors appear to be more concerned with previous problems with the church than with the school use proposal Mr Ranum asked if the traffic issue had been addressed at all Mr Russell stated no specific consideration had been giving to the potential for additional traffic, but the city could check with Washington County Mr Middleton asked if there was anything the Commission could do to help neighbors rectify the issues Mr Russell pointed out that several years ago neighbors presented a petition asking for some changes in the ball fields Mr Russell said the Commission could make conformance with zoning ordinances part of the conditions of approval, the use also could be subject to a one- year review, he noted Mr Zoller asked why the school request was presented so late Mr DeJong said because of School Distnct 834's previous use of the church facility, he assumed the school use was already approved In moving to deny the Special Use Permit, Mr Zoller noted it was unfortunate the school use was tied to the ongoing problems neighbors have with the church and ball fields, problems that should have been addressed before this request was presented Mr Wald seconded the motion for denial Motion passed 7-1, with Mr Peroceschi voting against Case No SUP/01-43 A special use permit for a martial arts/dance school with one office at 215 N Williams St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Sara Gilberg, applicant Present were Ms Gilberg and Timothy Quarberg, the proposed building tenant Gary Starns, one of the immediate neighbors, stated the area is a quiet residential neighborhood Currently, one business operates from the location, and Mr Starns said he is opposed to the addition of two more businesses He spoke of potential problems with additional traffic, noise levels, the type of clientele that might be frequenting the new business He also showed photos indicating that the Gilbergs are not respecting the no=parking-line and -hours ofoperation=agreed upon when neighbors came before the City Council for relief from problems with the previous tenant, the Valley Co-op Mary Starns said there are not 28 parking spaces as indicated in the request documentation, and she said she wants the laws — no -parking space and hours of operation — enforced Mr Quarberg stated that there may or may not be a dance school His wife might operate the dance school which would be a spirituality motion class for adults, the music is not at all objectionable, he said He also stated that uutially, he planned to offer martial arts classes three • r • Mr Ranum indicated he did not find any reasonable argument for granting a vanance Mr Zoller stated he has never been in favor of a 0 variance for safety reasons Mr Middleton spoke in favor, stating that granting a vanance would have minimal impact on neighboring properties Mr Russell pointed that that m the expansion area, the setback from the railroad tracks is 75 feet, and he suggested that there might be complaints later if the Zephyr property changes hands and the property is put to another use, possibly commercial Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Zoller, moved to close the matter to public comment, motion passed unanimously Mr Hultman, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved to table this case until the Oct 8 meeting, motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/01-42 A special use permit for Oakndge Community Church for a K-12 Christian Day School at 6950 Stillwater Blvd in the RA, Single Family Residential Distnct Richard Bernier, applicant Present were Richard Bernier, representing Oakndge Church, and DeJ DeJong, representing the K-12 school Mr DeJong stated the school currently has 38 students, there is no busing of students He noted that Oakndge Church previously has served as a District 834 Adventure Club site for 25-30 children He said his proposal to locate the school in the church would not require any modifications to the structure, and there would be no signage Mr Zoller asked about recess, Mr DeJong said the proposal is to use the existing play area at the church, and stated the children would be highly supervised dunng the outside time The resident of 2209 Oakndge Road presented a petition of neighboring property owners opposed to the use He stated there is too much activity and on -going problems with noise, dust, litter, and trespassing association with sporting events held at the church's athletic fields He stated the area is zoned single-family and neighbors want it to remain that way Harry Klassen, 2127 Oakndge Road, addressed the Commission He showed a number of photos of the church property and charged that the church is out of compliance with several city ordinances, specifically there is an unpaved parking lot and the garbage dumpster is not enclosed He, too, spoke on ongoing problems with the use of the fields, including a problem with the batting cage He suggested the church should get the property in order before this request is considered He also spoke of existing traffic problems on County Road 5 Also speaking m opposition was the resident of 2340 Dnftwood who stated he was opposed to the school due to its association with the church Neighbors have never had a good relationship with the church, he stated Linda Ashworth, 2213 Oakndge, a neighboring property owner who has two children attending the school in question, stated the use of the athletic fields has been a nuisance at times, but she also suggested the fields are a great service to the community While there are issues that need to be resolved, she said the school use of the church is a reasonable use Tim Ashworth spoke of the positive impact of ballgames and also suggested that those issues are separate from the school use proposal 4a • A representative of Northern Vineyards was presented He said he thought a request to construct a deck was coming before the Planning Commission He was informed the Hentage Preservation Commission had reviewed and approved plans, and that a vanance was not needed Mr Hultman asked why the plans hadn't come before the Planning Commission, Mr Russell stated the deck was part of the ongmal plans • Mr Ranum asked if there is a review process in place for compliance with city ordinance, for example enclosure of dumpsters There was a bnef discussion of some problems with dumpsters m the downtown area • Fence Ordinance revisions — Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Wald, moved to continue this matter until the October meeting Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Teske, moved to adjourn at 10 05 p m , all in favor Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary • Memo • • • To Planning Commission - From Steve Russell, Community Development Director--- Date September 19, 2001 Subject Request for Variance to Rear Yard Setback Requirement for Construction of a Smgle Family Residence Located m the Bluffland/Shoreland, Duplex Residential District Along River Just North of Stillwater Yacht Club Between Railroad Tracks and the River Background This item was scheduled for the September 10, 2001, Planning Commission meetmg The apphcant presented their request and the Planning Commission prunanly commented on the request The item was continued to the October 8, 2001 meetmg of the Commission - The Request The request is for a vanance to the rear yard setback requirements for construction of a single family residence The site proposed for the development is already occupied by a smgle family residence In order for another residence to be constructed, the existing lot would have to be subdivided City sewer service is not available to the site at this time Plans are bemg prepared to provide service to this site at some pomt m the future but the sewer project is not at this time scheduled for construction Access to the site would have to be provided over a shared dnveway with the existing residence The apphcant has mdicated that although services are not available and the lot is not split, he would like to proceed with the variance request The setback requirements m the Bluffland/Shoreland District is 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark The city's setback from the railroad nght of way is 25 feet The lot width is 145 feet A vanance to the rear yard setback is requested to allow the structure to be located closer to the railroad property At this pomt, no special circumstances particular to the property have been presented by the apphcant other than the economic use of the land If the vanance was granted, the residential use could be mcompatible with the railroad use that runs 30 feet from the property boundary Noise and fights from the tram have been a concern to other residences located m close proximity to the tracks Attached to this request is the site plan showmg the location of the proposed buildmg site and a topography survey of the area The buildmg site is located outside of the flood plam Recommendation Demal Attachment Application and map 08/20/2001 10 28 430881 CITY OF STILLk ,R PAGE 02 , Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 __Special/Conditional Use Permit V Variance _Resubdivlsion _Subdivision* Fees • $50/200 $70/200 $100 $100+50/lot Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment` _Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Design Review $300 $500 $70 $25 "An escrow fee Is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant Is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan Is required with applications Any Incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION • Address of Protect I S I I North- IV1 o In S kc r- Assessor's Parcel No a2/ 0,,30020 V/ (9Q0' �p (GEO Code) Zoning District F. -2- Description of Project Butr or Gov Lot 1 ,I/N'rµ cF Ma Ine•J ?al W r 614104 - 4144 5QurH- of t(tt CAsree.t.y pec lc & i iz 0 F tl,� I WSI O r, I .n Zo rs /3 t /4-8I0c(c .T cart, r Sclu (e„th rS it Add, A6,./ 7/o c Qv off' snezt-q "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, Infoltnat/on and evidence submitted herewith in an respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify / will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Oalin & //osc`i(.v E/AYA(E /4,i p4-z P operty Owner(.�--- , < —Mailing Address-/sL —"jet— - -Ij. i N City - State - Zip Sf r!/c,,4 f&e r- / i (A) ,S'sb s 2 Telephone No tQ r/ - S/ 3 9- Co 6 3 F Signature Representative Ing-Addres Y 3 o=Seto,td= City - State - Zip WJpk, 141 A) Ss Vs Z - z sL4 4' Telephone No 6 1 z- 413 6- 36 3 6 „se 2E- Ignature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 80o x /4S Land Area c // 6i 0 00 s F Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces • ii \mrn'Im-1,-,1,,-.11,%ou Af,ennn Cl7R* 1 n nnnn 7117 r 1 / $ f 7 i l rid a.[ ILIUM WI P9 Sue:Ti r rvc _ _ wivirsaro W'/SCO SN I �1.._.—Il..1 t. r 1 — r • IS I • i 1 '1 HOESCHLER & BEISEL LLP ATTORNEYS John G Hoeschler Ph 612-436-3636 Fax 612-338-6600 jghoeschler@msn con August 22, 2001 Mr Steve Russell, Planner Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Mmnesota 55082 Re Alple Property North of Mulberry Poant Manna Dear Steve 282 US Trust Center 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-2444 Per our discussion earlier in the month, I enclose Mrs Aiple's application for a vanance from the rear lme setback requirements for any residential structure to be built on her property directly north of the Mulberry Point Marna In this regard, I enclose the followmg 1 Application form 2 Maps of property showing area m question 3 Application fee of $ 70 00 This request is based upon the peculiar nature of the subject property and the surroundmg properties It is required m order to realize any economic value fiom the property It is occasioned through no fault of the landowner It is the mimmum variance necessary to solve the problem created by the strict enforcement of the zoning code • • As you will see from the survey, we are requestmg permission to establish a building envelope 150' wide running from the 100' front set back lme to the back lme of the property We are not requestmg a front (nver) or sideline variance While I believe we should qualify for a front lme variance, we do not wish to become embroiled m a protracted dispute with the DNR -We only desire a rear lme setback-vanance m order -to allow sufficient room to build a smgle- family residence on the property • • • • Mr Steve Russell August 20, 2001 Page Two of Three We do not have actual plans for a specific structure because we wish to confirm m advance of that design effort that there will be room to build a reasonable home Therefore, we are supply asking for the vanance to confirm that we can build an otherwise compliant structure within the building envelope descnbed Our general plan is to provide access from the north over the existing access road to the present Aiple home No additional railroad crossing will be required This is the natural and histonc access point for this property The entire Aiple parcel consists of almost fifteen acres and stretches over 3/4 of a mile along the St Croix River The present Aiple house is located in the northerly 3/4 of the parcel and is delineated by a formal gate and fence on the north side of the railroad crossing The land south of the gate (the "Subject") has been undeveloped for the past fifty years but in earlier times was part of the industrial waterfront of Stillwater The land itself is high enough above the nver to be not subject to flooding The Subject is bounded on the south by the north line of Mulberry Point Manna, on the west by the old Northern Pacific railroad tracks, on the east by the nver and on the north by the easterly prolongation of the division line between Lots 13 and 14, Block 7, Carl' & Schulenberg's Addition The entire Aiple property, including the Subject, is within the city limits The property is zoned RB-Two Family District It is served by public water and will shortly be served by public sewer The bluff is west of the property on the other side of Main Street and the railroad tracks The prevailing setback from the nver and the railroad tracks is established by the Mulberry Point Marina The Manna has buildings at the edge of the river slope and has developed all the way to its boundary with the railroad The Aiples have owned this property since the 1950's A few years ago the City gave a conditional use permit to allow a parking lot and landing for a commercial boat, but the National Park Service vetoed the request for a dock on the grounds that the property needed to be sold to a single user While we felt that the veto was without legal basis, no one wanted to spend the time or money required for a court appeal We have now been approached by several parties interested in purchasing the property for a single family homestead if it is buildable The combination of the 100' front (nver) setback and a 25' rear year setback makes the property substantially unbuildable Mr Steve Russell August 20, 2001 Page Three of Three A variance from the rear yard setback will not adversely affect the adjoining owner because the railroad tracks separate any structure from the Subject and the tracks themselves are more than 25 feet from the property line The Subject is a beautiful piece of property and all parties would be best served by the construction of a stylish single family home on it This would set its use for the future and assure minimal impact upon the environment while still allowing meaningful economic use for the property The Aiples have been paying taxes on this property for nearly fifty years and deserve to be able to realize some value from it We therefore request a full vanance from the rear yard set back so that we can have meaningful discussions with possible buyers Thank you very much for your consideration cc Elayne Aiple Very truly yours, HOESCHLER & BEISEL, LLP • 89Q-a CIALC Jo T I G Hoeschler JGH/rgb • • • • C OP MAW TR OF P Cf C �WACO AOREL ST PER camp 10 • ` _. of ELE;c1 --� �1 vo _ ��� �,• 4: i d 3624 5sr _r ��cli --�� R = 2893 9 . d 11.1.1 gf WESTERLY SHOREUNE OF THE i ,„ ST CROIX RIVER (LAKE ST CROIX) z $ S. $' $ AS FIELD LOCATED DECEMBER 14 1995 �- pep ^ o �rq G1 i �� ngg bg Z gV g ICE ELEVATION ON DECEMBER I4, 1995 VI ;"i PI3. Z3 H'4 o2w S m_ a C. -spi N ' N O • • " j. -• (676 0 FEET) N CD • No. 95 RAIN TRACK OF RAILWAY CC 71_ ST PER OECCRIPTION 40"w 25 % 1N3Wf1N019 NO211 • 1 rJ 1 r' r' 1 ra , () i // M / .0 I / / I ' Z U'1 1 ° 1 NZ �Q 20 v0 / / / - 235 40 E_ -ooirr7 Q ; 3°24,' S,r l r_ I �O In `3/' �� rR,�c 00 - L// ,� ( CERTIFICATE OF T TLE 83 00 \\ 7 WESTERLY SHORELINE OF THE ST CROIX RIVER (LAKE ST CROIX) AS FIELD LOCATED DECEMBER 14, 1995 ICE ELEVA"'ON ON DECEMBER 4,1995 '6'6 0 FEET) cT, NO (n i i NORTHERN • E LT LINE 0FI MAIN STRI ROADWAY CASEMENT PER 3K 55 PG 1 A0 — 1 I 35 00 48 �J) > 1•- 75 00 0 - . - rn L VIu2 4r Vf 9 Hm (l 1 21030 10 wool Il LI 21030200440000 1 210 302011 I., 2103020440006 to 0 2603020110002 0 • Engineering Department Aiple Lot 100 0 100 Feet LAKE ST CROIX MINN DNR DIV OF WATERS PROTECTED WATER 82-1 P • Memo • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director (2 Date October 4, 2001 Subject Continued Discussion of Special Use Permit Review of Martial Arts/Dance Use Request The item was initially reviewed at your meeting of 9-10-01 and continued to this meeting for additional consideration Since 9-10-01 a review of the site and discussions with the applicant have provided additional information The parking lot is not stnpped or landscaped The parking improvement is in process and should be accomplished this fall Vehicles, a boat and trailer, are stored on the lot They will be removed making the lot available for building parking The garage door on the alley provides access to the building storage area At times, unloading of fixtures occur at that location This takes place during normal work hours and does not block alley or adjacent dnveway access The existing and proposed use of the building has a 17 car -parking requirement It appears this can be accommodated by the existing parking lot when stnpped Other conditions of approval regarding utilities, lighting and signage address special neighborhood compatibility issues Recommendation Approval Condition of Approval 1 Hours of martial arts/dance use shall be between 7 00 a m and 9 00 p m 2 The vehicles conditions stored in the parking lot shall be removed making the lot available for building use 3 The parking lot shall be resurfaced and stnpped to center making parking spaces 4 Any new signage shall be located on the inside of the window, no additional extenor signage 5 All existing extenor signage shall be down lit and turned off after 10 30 at night 6 Parking lot landscaping shall be installed and maintained 7 Trash shall be stored in the building 8 Condition of approval for SUP/01-37 shall apply to the site Attachments Staff report and minutes CPC 7-10-00 Staff report 9-10-01 Planning Application Review Form Case SUP/01-43 Planning Commission Date September 10, 2001 Project Location 215 North William Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicant's Name Sara Gilberg Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A special use permit for a marital arts/dance school with one office Discussion The applicant is requesting a special use permit to operate a martial arts, dance school and consulting practice The building has a total square footage of 4897 square feet The applicant will occupy 2547 square feet The remaining area of the building is being used for an electrical company (received a special use permit on 7/10/00) The proposal is to offer a one -hour class in the morning (not earlier that 7 00 a m ), a noontime class, an after -school class, and classes in the evening between 6 00 and 8 00 p m Maximum class size would be 30 students The consulting practice would consist of administrative work on a one to one basis The applicant's wife would conduct the dance and movement school for adults only Classes would be once or twice a week during the hours the applicant does not have classes i • The applicant states in the attached letter that he does not plan of having large or bright signage on the property, but plans to use "simple and tasteful signs" (probably in the window) that will simply let people know that they have arrived at their destination —He states that-he-does=not-anticipate-attracting business through the use of signs It is staffs recommendation that all signage be inside of the windows, to minimize the impact in the residential neighborhood The parking lot has 28 spaces, 25 of the spaces are the applicants, which is required for that type of use in the zoning ordinance Conditions of Approval 1 Hours of operation will be between 7 00 a m and 9 00 p m 2 Any signage inside the windows shall not be lit 3 No exterior signage • • • • 4 All parking shall be on -site 5 All exterior lighting shall be downlit 6 The Planning Commission shall review all complaints Recommendation Approval as recommended Findings The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance Attachments Application Form/ Letter COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No 5U 19J0 1 -q3 Date Filed & I ) 31C i Fee Paid A00 .60 Receipt No g.,?, 1 al PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED i( Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Fees $5 $70/2 $100 $100+50/lot Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Design Review $300 $500 $70 $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of St►llwater A site plan is required with apphcations Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 215 North William St Assessor's Parcel No 28-030-20-31-0058 • RB Martial Arts/dance sG schoEO ol Zoning District Description of Protect with 1 office "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner William Properties Mailing Address 215 N William St City=State=Zip Strl-lwater, MN-55082 Telephone No (6 51) 4 3 9 - 7171 Signature �ci -e Cr Lot Size (dimensions) 1 2 5x 1 2 6 Land Area 15750 sq ft Representative Sara Gilberg Mailing Address 215 N William St City =State = Zip Stil-lwater-,=MN55082— Telephone No Signature _ SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Height of Buildings 1 Stories Feet Principal Accessory -,/fr Total Building floor area 4 8 9 7 square feet Existing 2350 square feet Proposed 2547 square feet Paved Impervious Area 775 0square feet No of off-street parking spaces 2 8 • H \mcnamaralsheila\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 • • • Timothy A. Quarberg, M.Div., J.D. 1371 Dallager Court Stillwater, MN August 22, 2001 Stillwater Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re Special Use Permit Application for 215 North William Street Dear Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission I am the prospective tenant of the property located at 215 North William Street in the City of Stillwater and am writing in support of the attached application for a special use permit to operate a martial arts school and consulting practice at that site My family and I moved to Stillwater this past June after living in Cambridge, Minnesota for the last seven years where I was practicing law and my wife was a hospital supervisor While living in Cambridge I (and two of my children) were members of the Cambridge Taekwondo Center where I attained the rank of second-degree black belt In anticipation of our move to Stillwater, and after discovenng that a Taekwondo school did not exist in Stillwater, I determined to start a school where I could teach both Taekwondo and Qigong (which is a practice similar to Tai Chi) Additionally, my wife Amy is hoping to offer classes in creative movement I am also planning on using this space as my office from which to conduct my leadership consulting business, HeartVenture Consulting After considerable searching and investigation we concluded that the property located at 215 North William Street would be an ideal location for our school, although a special use permit would be required This property is located within the RB-two-family district Pursuant to Subdivision 12(2)(a) of the Stillwater Code all buildings and uses permitted by special use permit in the RA -one -family district (as set forth in subdivision 11(2)) are permitted by special use permit within the RB-two-family distnct Among others, subdivision 11(2) includes the following as permitted uses by special use permit 1) Public and pnvate primary and secondary schools, and 2) Other commercial uses found not to be objectionable to the neighborhood m which they are proposed to be located I believe the use for which I am seeking permission can be approved on the basis of these two provisions A Public and Pnvate Pnmary and Secondary Schools It is somewhat difficult to classify a school for the martial arts as a pnvate primary or secondary school The use I intend, however, shares with those entities a concern for the education and edification of the youth of our community Many people are familiar with the benefits that children expenence from practicing martial arts, especially being enabled to focus and direct their energy and efforts toward positive goals I want our martial arts school to be an adjunct educational facility for those children and families who want to grow in ways not available through other educational opportunities As a former pastor, and as an attorney who has had significant contact with the juvenile justice system, I am keenly aware of how important such opportunities are Additionally, I am hoping to offer classes and programs for children dunng the after -school time of day Because I want our students to feel like they are going to a "school" and not to a business, and for safety concerns, I prefer to have our school located in a more residential neighborhood than a stnctly commercial area For these reasons I believe the use for which we are applying is at least analogous to pnmary and secondary schools, even if it is not stnctly within that classification B Other Commercial Uses Not Objectionable to the Neighborhood I believe that a martial arts school is the kind of use for the subject property that would not be objectionable in this neighborhood Indeed, for the reasons cited above, I would argue that such a use would be desirable I understand, however, the concerns that residents may have for the nature of the use of this property with respect to traffic, noise and other issues With respect to these concerns I do not anticipate that our school would intrude upon the neighborhood and its residents Traffic in the neighborhood would be impacted to some extent because most students would either drive or be dropped off for classes That traffic, however, would be noticeable only at the beginning and end of particular classes and would not last for any appreciable length of time The availability of parking spaces at the property would also minimize the need for on -street parking Furthermore, our schedule of classes would be limited in scope during the day and would be scheduled three or four days a week I am hoping eventually to offer a one -hour class in the morning (not earlier than 7 00 a m ), a noontime class, an after -school class, and classes in the evemng between 6 00 and 8 00 p m My consulting practice would not contribute to noise or traffic inasmuch as the work I perform on the premises would consist of administrative work and one-on-one leadership coaching In other words, traffic would not be constant and it would not be present at times during which people would be disturbed in their homes I do not plan on having large or bnght signage on the property that would detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood I hope to use simple and tasteful signs (probably in the window) that will simply let people know that they have amved at their destination, I do not anticipate attracting business through the use of signs In conclusion, we believe that we can contribute to the continued improvement of the Stillwater community and that this use serves that end We hope you agree and ask that you approve this application for a special use permit at 215 North William Street Respectfully ubmitted; Timothy A Quarberg • FS "141711 I `ff II I IL, itMI. — M. - -7< ivyy°^'� t O 0L i -,A.29.*" 9/ 1 y"` / 2-2rs fri -' b ) ", Jl'w ,, od p OA) / 7,X7d�� ��►�wOs L 1 6 I 1 1 II �I �I II 9 II 1 L-1 _ v I • r -_Ls--- --tea • A • iq &to-9' 1-- 1 1 _ _ If15(4, -r -7, z i 5/3.7 738.' - • - Ir - - r - 1 - 1 - I i 1 1 1 I • Sue Fitzgerald From Quarberg Tim [Tim Quarberg@westgroup cam] • Sent Wednesday September 05 2001 2 21 PM To Sue Fitzgerald Subject Conditional Use Permit Application • • Dear Ms Fitzgerald I received a message from Sara Gilberg regarding some questions you have about our proposed use of the property at 215 North William Street I understand you are wondering approximately how many students I would anticipate being on the premises at any given time, and how many parking spaces I would have available Additionally you are wondering how about the hours of operation and number of students my wife's dance school may have With respect to the martial arts school, I hope to have a minimum of 15 students enrolled shortly after beginning operation It would be unlikely that all the students enrolled in the school would all be present at any given class Because class size is related to the quality of instruction, I would anticipate limiting classes to no more than 30 students per class Whether the school will attract that many students is, of course, not possible for me to state with certainty I understand from the Gilbergs that there would be 25 parking spaces available in the parking lot I doubt that I would use all these spaces because many parents drop their children off and pick them up, thus limiting the need for parking In short, I believe adequate off-street parking exists With respect to my wife's activities, her plans are considerably less ambitious than mine in that she would probably offer dance and movement classes for adults only and probably only once or twice a week during hours that I do not offer classes Again, I believe there is adequate parking to serve any students who participate in any class she might offer In general, I do not anticipate having heavy traffic to the property because the nature of the activities we hope to offer are not the sort to have constant comings and goings And, because this would be a new business, I cannot predict how many students I will actually have Also, I will start out offering classes only three (3) evenings per week but hope to offer more sessions if demand is there However, I would not want to (and could not afford to) limit my hours of operation beyond stating that I would not anticipate having classes before 8 00 a m or ending classes after 9 00 p m In no event would I imagine that traffic would ever rise to a level of becoming a nuisance I hope this is responsive to your questions If I can be of any more help please do not hesitate to contact me You can reach me by replying to this email or by calling me at 351-5343 Sincerely, Timothy A Quarberg CITY OF STILLWATER ZONING USE PERMIT ORIGINAL Case No SUP/00-37 Permit Fee $200 Date Fee Paid 5/24/00 Certificate of Compliance Rezoning Sign X Special Use Permit Variance Conditional Use Amended Planned Unit Development Grading Other Applicant Sara and Garry Gilberg Address 215 North William Street City/State/Zip Code Stillwater MN 55082 Property Descnption 28-030-20-31-0058 and 28-030-20-31-0056 Zone District RB Two Family Residential District Permitted Use A special use permit to change use of an existing noncomforming building from retail sales to electnal services office and residential use Conditions of Approval 1 No additional signage 2 An electrical contractor and residential use shall be allowed Other uses shall require conditional use permits with Planning Commission approval 3 If trash is stored outside, a trash enclosure shall be made of a sturdy solid masonry material with trash receptacles screened from view and compatible with the color and materials of the project 4 All secunty lighting be downlit Neighbors must not see the light source 5 All utilities shall be completely screened from public view We accept the conditions or tnis permit We understand tnat any changes from tnese plans must be resubmitted for approval Owner or Repres tative ommunity Development Director 7- ,2 / mood 7 -1-0, i Date ate • • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUP/00-37 Planning Commission Date July 10, 2000 Project Location 215 North William Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Sara and Garry Gilberg and Gregory Johnson Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A special use permit to change use of an existing nonconforming building from retail sales to electncal service, office and residential use Discussion Sara and Garry Gilberg are negotiating with building owner, Gregory Johnson to move their small electncal contracting business into the front of the building using about 2,500 square feet for office and storage They have three office employees that would be parking on site Their electricians take their trucks home Generally, they have the electncal matenals shipped directly to the job, so they do not expect many trucks coming and going from the above building The other half of the building would be rented They are considenng renting it to a small repair shop, some type of service business or other office space They are also considenng a residential apartment There will be one sign on the front of the building that will be brown 8" high lettenng and it will say "Summit Electric" The sign will be lit using two gooseneck light fixtures Conditions of Approval 1 No additional signage 2 An electncal contractor and residential use shall be allowed Other uses shall require conditional use permits with Planning Commission approval 3 If trash is stored outside, a trash enclosure shall be made of a sturdy solid masonry material, with trash receptacles screened from view and compatible with the color and matenals of the project 4 All secunty lighting be downht Neighbors must not see the light source 5 All utihties shall be completely screened from public view Recommendation Approval Findings Special Use Permit - The proposed use will not be injunous to the neighborhood or otherwise detnmental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance Attachments Application form, letter, two site plans and sign elevation CPC Action on 7/10/00 +6-0 approval • • • • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 10, 2000 Present Jerry Fontaine, chairperson Glenna Bealka, Russ Hultman, Dave Middleton, John Rheinberger and Terry Zoller Others Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent Robert Gag, Karl Ranum and Darwin Wald Mr Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval of the minutes of June 12, 2000, all in favor Case No SUP/00-37 A special use permit to change use of an existing nonconforming building from retail sales to mixed use at 215 N William (Valley Co-op) in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Country House Inc , Gregory Johnson, applicant Mr Johnson and Sara and Garry Gilberg, whose business will occupy a portion of the building, were present Mr Johnson questioned condition of approval No 3 regarding the trash enclosure Mr Russell stated a commercial dumpster would not be needed if trash is kept inside and taken out the day of pick-up Mr Gilberg questioned condition of approval No 2 requinng all space users other than his business be approved by the Planning Commission at a public heanng Mr Russell noted the property is zoned residential and a public heanng would be required to determine the appropnateness of use, once a specific use is decided on for the remainder of the building Mr Gilberg stated he is leaning toward residential use in the remainder of the building There was discussion as to whether a public heanng would be required for residential use, and consensus was it would not Mr Hultman suggested changing the language of condition No 2 to require a public heanng for any uses other than the electncal contractor or residential The property owner at 214 N William asked about lighting Mr Gilberg stated there would be downht secunty lighting m the parking area, but lighting will be more reduced that is currently m use Mr Fontaine noted that neighbors must not see the light source Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved approval as conditioned with the amended language to condition of approval No 2 and eliminating condition No 3 if the trash is stored inside the building Motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/00-43 A subdivision to combine lots 20 and 21, Block 11, Churchill, Nelson and Slaughter's Addition into one lot of 10,800 square feet in the RB, Two Family Residential District Scott Junker, applicant Mr Junker was not present Mr Russell stated Mr Junker owns both lots The subdivision request must before the City Council Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved to recommend approval of the subdivision as conditioned, all in favor 1 • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUP/01-49 Planning Commission Date October 8, 2001 Project Location 115 North Harriet Street Comprehensive Plan Distnct Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name Mark Balay, representing John and Madeline Macindoe Type of Application Variance Project Description A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 5 feet requested) for the construction of an addition to an existing garage Discussion The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a garden shed addition to the south side of their existing detached garage The garage is 5 feet from the front property line The addition would be 11 feet by 19 feet or 209 square feet The land tends to slope to the east and there are a number of large trees making it difficult to construct a garden shed in another location that would be practically located Conditions of Approval 1 The addition shall be similar in style, color and materials as the main structure 2 All plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, Toss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a vanance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties in the same distnct and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the vanance will not be of substantial detnment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter/Site Plan/Elevation COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit ariance _Resubdivision ' 0 _Subdivision* $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* _Planning Unit Development * _Certificate of Compliance _Design Review Fees $300 $500 $70 $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and eng►neenng fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting matera! (► e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with apphcat,ons Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the apphcaton process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project ( ( 1 , -kL (1 �� Assessor's Parcel No 62/4o?D3/4003 (GEO Code) Zoning District Descnption of Project I O S Cr e- "I hereby state the forego►ng statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify 1 will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner ,j;Z)E-Representative Mailing Address \ 1 T t • {4 t ( 5C , Mailing Address it (> t1Y (E S( City = State = ZipS('t [�J�E�=� y�-��-2� City � State � ZipT` LLc,�*L j'j�) SSQc`3Z Telephone No - - Telephone No / 43(; jZ S►gnatu,,E�i ��� �d _ _ Signatur Lot Size (dimensions) _ x Land Area Height of Buildings Principal Accessory Stories Feet SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIOJ1._ AC L-f ' Total Building floor area pwr Existing square feet square feet square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet IJ/L No of off-street parking spaces 5 H lmcnamaralsheda\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 1 0 144 , 506 W w STREET `1 O I •N•, C. 0 J co rO I` ' L9' CP (0c co ' ----- — f. ' ci j 422 N- 406 ' 3061 Location Map I • I co (0! • 178 1MSeN(01 132 �-z ' 211 '136N-,, ? 212`31 - - II s✓ . 00 A g 4 ° 6 / CO LC) _ �__ STREET • • rn 304 I• 303 • • Nf t. A R_IW R_'OW RI9W R_ W R_IW R_OW Mandy Map 187 Scale in Feet 1..Qr... ▪ wI,incer,..w., I. b C C.9 8....0o. On.. h id 1...1a 4 Mark S Balay, AIA S t I I I w a t e r M i n n e s o t a 110 East Myrtle Street State 100 Shllwate► Minnesota 55082 (651) 430 3312 9/20/01 City of Stillwater Attn Steve Russell 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Russell Michael E Balay AIA I n d I a n a p o I i s I n d i a n a 6801 Lake Plaza Drive State C-305 Indzanapolrs Imhana 46220 (317) 845 9402 My architectural firm is representing John and Madeline In the design and development of a garden shed addition to their existing detached garage at 115 N Harriet We request a variance to theyront yard setback requirement as shown on our plans on the south side of the existing garage for an addition, which will be 11'x19' We base our request upon the following hardships 1) Existing topographic city lot and histonc home development which previously permitted the placement of a garage in a front yard setback 2) Histonc neighborhood considerations for an appropriate addition of a garden shed space to the existing garage and property Per our preliminary discussion with you, we are anticipating a public heanng with the Planning Commission, Oct 8 Don't hesitate calling if you have any questions or require additional information Sinc k S Balay Mark S Balay Archie ts, Inc --- - cc John and Madeline Macindoe _ enc • • • L w (*trith-la Z. N O 414 II - jig 3. II CM 1 vs ii a 4 1 v al gi ll a i ii i$ e to me we Al OF 0 1Stic • Nr'f argi i 264151AR 1'_f1 / CUfAi .-1XI511NG WAII fAS-11N§ FOo ING 1 r- i n O�AS1 UARAc MVA1(ION --V----— Stc,Ga I N1 �rfl L- AB CetEkGE SPAN rig ZOO1 e C A OV LR 1 i ADAGE FL ?OR PIAN AI,E-1"-0' 1 CO i �r3 Memo • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date October 4, 2001 Subject Request for Modification to Approved Plans for Variance for Construction of Ticket Office The request is to modify the approved plans as outlined in the letter of application The Hentage Preservation Commission has reviewed the design aspects of the request and approved them as conditioned (See HPC staff report and conditions of approval) The request before the Planning Commission is the change in pedestnan, auto and bus access to the site Plan 1 shows the onginally approved site plan In that plan, four handicapped spaces are provided directly north of the office building Dnveway access to the space is provided from the north end of the south main city parking lot (next to Bnck alley parking) Pedestnans access the office and boat docks using a dedicated walkway from the south main lot Plan 2 shows the proposed revision The reason for the revision includes location of sewer pipe, and separate bus drop-off The proposed change would be restncted to bus drop-off and handicapped parkers The proposal would result in buses heading into the dnveway and backing into the city lot to get out The proposed change would result in pedestnans, cars and bussing using the dnveway ramp for access to the 1S` level ticket office location Buses would back into the travel isle where pedestnans walk and autos access the lot off Main Street City staff cannot support the change in site design and dnveway access because of safety concerns, possible traffic impacts and impact on operation of south main lot The City has hired a consultant to study the use of Main Street for additional parking A curbside drop-off could be considered in that study The police chief and parking lot manager feel the existing bus drop-off arrangement works fine If the handicapped space cannot work because of the sewer pipe location, spaces could be relocated in the Andiamo parking area Also, handicapped spaces in the south main lot could be relocated closer to the boat boarding area ticket office Recommendation Deny site plan change for bus/handicapped access from south end of the south main parking lot and direct Main Street bus drop-off be considered in the South Main Street parking study Attachment Onginal Approved Plans and Requested Revision Condition of Approval for Design Approval • 4 HPC APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/DR100-19 HPC Date May 1, 2000 Project Location South of Main Street Municipal Parking Lot — no address available Comprehensive Plan District Central Business District Zoning District CBD Applicant's Name Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises Type of Application Design Review Project Description Design review of boat ticket office plans and signage for Andiamo Enterprises Discussion The Commission reviewed the concept of this project at the February 7, 2000 HPC meeting Architect, Mark Balay, has refined it according to HPC's and Community Development's suggestions Attached is a letter from Steve Russell The 1250 square foot building will be sided with corrugated metal sheeting — galvanized finish The vanous levels of roofs will have asphalt shingles There will be a walkout basement on the east side All windows will be non -reflective glass with cross -hatching detail All mechanical equipment will be inside the building except for a small condenser on the south side of the structure An enclosed dumpster is proposed near the Dock Restaurant's dumpster site A dark green wooden fence would be used to enclose the dumpster The applicant needs to procure the City Councils approval to place the dumpster at the shown location because it is City property Building fighting will consist of four "goose- neck" fixtures, two on the east side, and two on the west face of the building Any other lighting would be pedestnan lights along a planned eight -foot asphalt walkway The light -fixture -would-be similar -to the -Downtown decorative lighting fixtures There is enough existing lighting for the parking lot The applicant will also be seeking a variance to the parking from the Planning Commission Signage if approved, will be on the north and west side of the building The signs _ _ would not be lit, and will be the same colors as the signage on the paddle boats _ The lettering is red on a deep bronze background • Conditions of Approval • • 1 All changes to the approved plan would be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 No additional signage 3 Staff will review and approve the sign fabncator's final drawings and issue the sign permit 4 Landscape plan be reviewed and approved by staff 5 All landscaping shall be installed before final inspection Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings The project is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines Attachments Application/Site Plan/Building Elevations • Hentage Preservation Comnussion May 1, 2000 Present Howard Lieberman, chairperson Beth Diem, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Robert Kimbrel, Dean Miller and Roger Tomten Others Planner Sue Fitzgerald Absent None Mr Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Tomten, seconded by Mr Miller, moved approval of the minutes of Apnl 3, 2000, all in favor Case No DR/00-10 Design review of addition at Ascension Episcopal Church, 214 N Third St Jim Christopherson, representing Ascension Church Present for the discussion were Jim Chnstopherson and Bob Zimmerman representing the architectural firm Bentz/Thompson/Rietow They noted they have met with city engineenng staff regarding drainage issues With the exception of the north side, the existing footpnnt of the buildings will not be changed a great deal Existing bnck/stone will be matched as closely as possible, window glazing will be done to match the existing coloration in the parish hall, and roof pitches will remain the same There was a question about the location of the transformer/condensing unit and the trash enclosure The transformer/condensing unit will be placed at the west end of the church building and be screened by landscaping The existing trash enclosure will be utilized Mr Kimbrel asked about extenor lighting Mr Zimmerman noted a site plan with cuts of lighting types was included in the packet, some existing wall sconces will be utilized Mr Johnson noted that conditions of approval No 2 and No 8 were redundant Mr Johnson moved approval as conditioned, eliminated condition of approval No 8 and changing condition of approval No 2 to read, "All fighting shall be directed away from the street and adjacent properties Light sources shall be shielded from direct view and protected from damage by vehicles " Mr Kimbrel seconded the motion Ms Diem asked if the architects had met with building officials regarding spnnkling requirements, Mr Zimmerman responded in the affirmative and said the spnnklmg requirements will not affect the architecture Motion of approval passed unanimously Case No DR/00-09 Design review of extenor signage for Wells Fargo Bank at 2000 - — Northwestern -Ave -Robert Sherlock — Signart Co -Inc representing Wells Fargo • • 1 Mr Sherlock was present He said there will not be any new signs, faces will be replaced on the existing signs He also noted the existing marquee signage will be eliminated, the structure will Hentage Preservation Commission May 1, 2000 remain, but it will be non -illuminated Also some existing signs that currently are illuminated will be non -illuminated when the new sign faces are installed The ATM signage will be addressed in a separate request Mr Johnson noted that the onginal proposal had the corporate stagecoach logo on the directional signs and that a revised proposal has been submitted removing the corporate logo Mr Tomten moved approval as condition, reiterating that corporate logos are not allowed and will not be used on mformation/directional signage Mr Miller seconded the motion Mr Johnson suggested adding for the record that the marquee signage is being removed, Mr Tomten noted that signage is an allowed use and therefore isn't an issue regarding a possible grandfathenng of use Motion of approval passed unanimously Case No DR/00-19 Design review of a boat ticket office south of the Main Street parking lot Mark Balay, representing Andiamo Enterprises Mr Balay explaining the location of the site The request is for a 25x50' structure of galvanized siding in keeping with the industnal look in the area, he said, with wood tnm soffit Lights would be placed at the front entrance only The request is for two signs, one flush mounted above the entrance and other mounted vertically off the roof on the west elevation Colors would be red with a dark gray or bronze background, Mr Balay said he would return with final colors for the signage and the building tnm/framing Ms Fitzgerald noted that just one sign is allowed Mr Kimbrel asked about landscaping Mr Balay said that except for the area nght in front of the entrance, there will be gravel the rest of the way to the end of the property, there will be some shrubs and plantings Mr Balay also noted the DOT owns the property from the highway to the proposed site Mr Johnson asked about lighting Mr Balay said he would like to use pedestnan lights similar to the NSP lights, and he said the existing NSP pole lights on the property will likely remain Mr Johnson said he would like to see the floodlights removed from the utility poles, Ms Fitzgerald will check to see if that is possible Mr Eastwood expressed a concern about the use of the galvanized siding Later m the discussion, Mr Tomten noted the design guidelines call for new construction to be of matenals compatible with surrounding structures, and Mr Miller pomted out there are other buildings m the downtown constructed of the corrugated siding Mr Tomten said he would be more concerned if the proposal was to use vinyl siding • Hentage Preservation Commission May 1, 2000 Mr Miller asked about the number of parking spaces Mr Balay said a variance will be required for parking as the property where parking will be located is leased from the railroad, unofficially, he said, the site can accommodate about 45 cars Mr Lieberman, seconded by Mr Johnson, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/DR/00-28 Design review of four -unit housmg structure located on Olive Street between Second Street and Third Street Donald and Marianne Nolde, applicants Present for the discussion were Donald and Mananne Nolde and architect Jerry Runk It was noted that height is not an issue The building is about 10 feet under the maximum allowable 50 foot building height The only vanance required is for construction of residential units in the downtown business district Mr Runk bnefly reviewed design plans and provided samples of bnck/rock-face concrete block and cloth awnings Most of the discussion centered on ways to improve the pedestnan scale appearance of the building Suggestions included the introduction of some bnck by the garage doors and the use of a brick pilaster at the west end to terminate with a brick corner post at the other end Mr Lieberman summed up the discussion by saying he thought it is important to provide residential housmg in the downtown area Mr Kimbrel moved to approve as conditioned with the applicant to provide a bnck pilaster on the west comer and landscaping if possible Mr Johnson seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Other items • Presentation of draft Hersey Staples & Co architectural survey by Don Empson Mr Empson said the narrative is pretty much done and is on schedule, a final draft should be completed m a month or two Members expressed appreciation of the readability of the document Mr Kunbreh-notedthat=#20_is-missing_from_the_descnption_of_the_Bird's_Eye View Map _Mr __ Johnson asked if m addition to listing homes by date, it might also be possible to list the homes by streets • HPC annual awards Ms Fitzgerald noted the awards were to be presented at the May 2 City Council meeting Mr Lieberman was to attend the meeting for the presentations • Ms Diem provided elevations of the addition/renovation project at St Michael's Catholic Church Mr Johnson said he thought the HPC should review the project Ms Fitzgerald said — she will check with Mr Russell on that issue • Mr Johnson raised an issue regarding a wall pack mounted by the doors at the new ice sheet at the Recreation Center • • • 3 • • • Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2000 • Mr Kimbrel raised the ongoing issue with berming along County Road 5 Ms Fitzgerald said the business owners in question are not receptive to complying with the City's request and there is no way to force them to do so Mr Johnson suggested the possibility of putting landscaping in the nght-of-way if necessary Mr Kimbrel, seconded by Mr Miller, moved to adjourn at 9 p m , all in favor Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 raj ii LFF 'i 1 El — NorrILELONt0/4— i1 • y� 1 t`f1 cL 1 , Zoo 0 I.J l±- '1 LudIJ 1I U ac .au..Swarr S715.112sw CDC. U rf V+MWooV ar+N+..FfNNfSP xT_ 'EL.WVFNsca4 1 __-__ 1 ‘it,r S_____ N[r N SN- \ �raaus+a Rcpwr+ s+r Fa SHEET Kw -Jr a.EvincN 1/4 '-o • • • f 1,0 O k4p — oms PsP ' c,o v - 1) Lower Level East Elevation Ught Fixtures/The three wall mounted tight fxtures Type B which are located on the east side of the budding should be centered over the three doors at that lower elevation 2) Upper Level West Elevation Light Fixtures/ The four proposed wall mounted light fixtures Type A should be reduced to 2 and placed at the comers of the building 3) West Sign Lighting) Five Tight fixtures have been requested equally spaced over the 24' long sign. These are approved as an Abolde AD100 angle reflector with a maximum 60-75watt bulb the color of this fixture is approved as black Any substitution should be approved by Sue Fitzgerald 4) North Elevation Window Adjustments/ There are 6 windows proposed for the north elevation All openings are approved as presented with the condition that an adjustment of the three windows in the center below the large skylight be made to proportionately compliment the honzontal (5 it. dimension) of the large skylight opening above by these alternative proposed methods a) build a small shed roof overhang as proposed at one time in the process to act as a belt between the two disproportionate window honzontal dimensions b) change the dimension of the three mulled windows by changing the windows to match the large window dimension above c) Suggest a wood tnm solution around the existing two windows that works out the dimensional differences d) Combine any of the above solutions to accomplish a proportionate joining of the two disproportionate honzontal window dimensions PLANNING MINUTES COUNCIL MINUTES ZONING USE PERMIT YES_ NO _ MAILED RETURNED BLDG DEPT COUNTY RECORDING YES_ NO_ MAILED COUNTY RECORDING DONE • Mark S Balay ALA Still w a ter '1 i n n e s o t a 110 East Myrtle Street State 100 Shllwater Minnesota 55082 (651) 430 3312 9/20/01 City of Stillwater Attn Steve Russell 216 N Fourth St Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr Russell A :L-'A f rARCHITECTS 1, Michael E Balay AIA I n d i a gap o 1 i s 1 n d i a n a 6801 Lake Pla_a Drive Suite C 305 Indianapohs Indiana 46220 (317) 845 9402 My architectural firm is representing the St Croix Boat and Packet Company in the design and development of a new ticket office, auxiliary parking and dumpster enclosures, to be located on property they own adjacent to the City of Stillwater Docks and current boat gangways at the south end of the Central Business Distnct We request an adjustment of the existing SUP to accomplish the following items 1) Revise Site Plan per attached drawing a) maintain a controlled connection to the City of Stillwater parking lot for purposes of Bus drop-off and handicap parking only ( with control signage) b) adjust position of retaining wall structures on both ends of the building per attached drawings c) add signage lighting on the west elevation sign, copies attached d) add a decorative iron fence on east elevation e) adjust landscape plan to new wall layout delete two unnecessary wooden stairs adjust design of window on north elevation of building Per our preliminary discussion with you, we are anticipating a meeting with HPC, Oct 1 and a public heanng with the Planning Commission, Oct 8 fl g) Don't hesitate calling if you have any questions or require additional information Sincerel Mark S Balay Mark S Balay Archit cc St Croix Boat and Packet Company City =State -=Zip c-Td_ .��h7 , fi— Telephone No S:gnatur Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED Fees COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _Special/Conditional Use Permit 200 CITY OF STILLWATER Variance rj�p171cxd $ ,(�200 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET Resubdivision STILLWATER, MN 55082 Subdivision* $100+50/lot �,, t _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 L '-� ` _Zoning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 6AS CPC I cf Certificate of Compliance Design Review $25 1 t1C-IN9 ot1 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project Assessor's Parcel No fi�EEO Code) _ Zoning District�,� Description of Project f , C1 J,z kf -l( `lf-�_'-r- • Ar7J 0 STI-iW.- "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " 44'c4Property Owner ST �I X �- � Representative J11- � � --e' Mailing Address Mailing Address ) )(Th t ` tLfk (, S'C City=State=Zip�7t J- _ K9 S Telephone No c- - 3) 7 Signatures - /---J SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ON Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces • H \mcnamara\sheiia\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 H P C APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO DRN/DR/01-50 Hentage Preservation Date October 1, 2001 Project Location Comprehensive Plan Distnct Central Business District Zoning District CBD Applicant's Name Mark Balay, representing St Croix Boat & Packet Company Type of Application Design Review Project Descnption Design review of exterior modifications for the Andiamo Ticket Office Discussion The applicant received design approval from this committee on May 1, 2000 Since the initial approval, several revisions to the original plan are proposed They are as follows a A connection to the City parking lot south of the Brick Ally building would be used for Bus drop-off and as a connection to the handicap parking spaces on the site of the ticket office Original approval was a drive east of the ticket office The buses refuse to dnve into that space due to the lack of space to turn around b The retaining wall is being adjusted at both ends of the building to incorporate the new entry for bus drop-off and handicap parking c Add signage to the west elevation of the building, lit with "goose -neck lighting fixtures l d Add a decorative 3% ft iron fence to the east side of the ticket office e Adjustment to the landscape plan to accommodate the new wall layout f Adjust the design of window on north side of the building, which was originally a double door and ticket counter The ticket counter has been moved to the east side of the building closest to the restrooms Recommendation Approval as conditioned Conditions of Approval 1 All revision to the approved plan be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission Findings The proposal meets the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines • Attachments Application Form/Proposed Site Plan and Elevation Drawings/May 1, 2000 Staff Report/Drawings and Minutes • • • 11010 11 mum m� • • • T • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Sue Fitzgerald, City Planner DA October 8, 2001 RE Revision of Fence Ordinance Attached for your review is a revision to the Fence Ordinance (Subd 24 Sec 16) The change allows for a residential fence to be on the lot line Recommendation Review draft changes and set public hearing the on Fence ordinance for Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2001 Attachment Draft ordinance • • • DRAFT -10/8/01 (16) Fence regulations Fence regulations are as follows a Purpose The purpose of this subsection is to provide for the regulation of fences in the city, to prevent fences being erected that would be a hazard to the public, or and unreasonable interference with the uses and enjoyment of neighboring property and are compatible with existing uses, other zoning restrictions and dramageways b Definitions For the purpose of this subdivision, the following definitions shall apply Fences means any linear structure used to prevent access by persons or animals or prevent visual or sound transference c Permit required No fence shall be erected without first obtaining a fence permit Application shall be made to the community development director along with a fence permit fee in the amount of $25 00 The community development director is authonzed to issue a fence permit if the application indicates that the fence will be in compliance with this subdivision The city council shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that the community development director was in error The appeals shall be taken as prescribed in subdivision 29 of this section d In yards Fences may be permitted in all yards, subject to the following 1 Fences in excess of six feet above the ground grade shall be prohibited unless the abutting neighbor consents to a higher fence and permission is granted by the city council 2 The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property 3 No fence shall be permitted on public nghts—of-way 4 No fence may be erected on either street side of a corner lot that will obstruct or impede the clear view of an intersection by approaching traffic 5 In residential distncts, fences located in the front yard beyond the building line shall not exceed 42 inches in height (Ord N 815, 8-1-95) 6 No fence shall be erected before all lots within a drainage system or platted block have had the final grade established and approved and all lots within the system or platted block have had turf established with grass seed or sod e Along property lines Fences may be permitted along property lines subject to the following 1 Fences in residential distncts may be erected on the lot line provided the footings are within the lot line 2 Fences in commercial or industnal distncts may be erected on the lot line to the height of six feet, to a height of eight feet with a security arm for barbed wire f Existing No existing fence in violation of tlus section will be allowed to be replaced or rebuilt Should an existing fence be replaced or rebuilt, it must come under the regulations of subsection (1)p of this subdivision g Impeding drainageways and easements No fence shall be erected where it will impede a drainageway or drainage easement h Violations Violations of subsection (1)p of this subdivision may be enforced by injunction, and the city shall be entitled to the remedy of abatement in order that a fence erected in violation of subsection (1)p of this subdivision may be removed • • • U it MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Sue Fitzgerald, City Planner DA October 8, 2001 RE Aboveground Swimming Pool Ordinance Amendment Attached for your review is a revision to the Construction of Swimming Pools Ordinance (Sec 33-2 Construction of swimming pools) The change tightens up the fence requirement for all pools in all districts, as Subd 14 Fences will be added to the text of Subd 16 Aboveground swimming pools Recommendation Review draft changes and set public hearing on Construction of Swimming Pools ordinance for Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2001 Attachment Draft ordinance • F Sec 33-2 Construction of swimming pools Subd 1 Permit required No person, corporation, partnership or firm must construct, repair, enlarge, alter, change, remodel or otherwise significantly improve a swimming pool without first having obtained a permit from the city Subd 2 Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meaning ascnbed to them in this subdivision, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning Public or semipublic swimming pool means any swimming pool other than a private swimming pool Residential swimming pool means any pool used or intended to be used as a swimming pool in connection with a single-family residence and which is available only to the family of the householder and private guests Swimming pool means any permanently located pool, used for swimming or bathing which is over 24 inches in depth or which has a surface area exceeding 150 square feet Subd 3 Approval by building official, building permit Before work is commenced on the construction of a swimming pool or any major alteration, addition, remodeling or other improvement is done to an existing swimming pool, detailed plans and specifications must be approved by the building official before a building permit is issued Subd 4 Plans to be submitted Plans, specifications and explanatory data that must be submitted with an application for a permit to construct a swimming pool or for any major alteration, addition or other improvement to a pool must contain the following information (1) The general layout of the lot on which the pool is to be located (2) The distances of the pool from the lot lines (3) Water supply systems, other utilities and any sources of possible contamination of the pool (4) A descnption of the pool's infiltration and chlonnation equipment (5) All dimensions, including the length, width, depth of the pool, the size of the pool deck and the liquid capacity of the pool Plans must be drawn to a scale of not -smaller than -one-fourth of -an inch to one -foot (6) Additional information may be requested by the building official Subd 5 Permit fees Permit fees will be set by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time Subd 6 Pool piping Pool piping systems must be constructed of matenals prescnbed in the state plumbing code Installation of the piping including the pool water supply tine must be done by a licensed plumber and must be inspected by the city plumbing inspector pnor to covenng the piping • b • • • Subd 7 Main outlets Pools must be equipped with facilities for completely emptying the pool and effecting surface drainage (by gravity if elevations permit) The drainage system must be constructed m conformance with the provisions of the state plumbing code and under the supervision of a licensed plumber, and shall not discharge directly on the land of an adjoining neighbor or in a manner that threatens or endangers fish or wildlife Subd 8 Water supply Water supplies serving all swimming pools must be safe, sanitary and be aacceptable to the public health authority The installation of the pool water supply piping and connection to the source of supply must be under the supervision of a licensed plumber Subd 9 Electrical requirements All electrical installations provided for, installed and used in conjunction with residential swimming pools must conform to the state electrical code and must be inspected and approved by the state electncal inspector No current -carrying electncal conductors must cross residential swimming pools, either overhead or underground, or within 15 feet of a pool, except as necessary for pool lighting or pool accessones Subd 10 Heating requirements Permits are required for all heating units used in conjunction with swimming pools Installation must be made by installers licensed by the city and in accordance with any lawful code in effect at the time of installation Subd 11 Pressure relief valves Pool contractors must certify that they have examined the construction site with respect to the water table level and potential soil saturation If it is determined to be necessary, in the opinion of the building official, pools must be designed and constructed with under -drain systems and pressure relief valves to prevent pool flotation Subd 12 Shielding lights Lights used to illuminate swimming pools must be arranged and shielded to reflect light away from adjoining properties Subd 13 Location All swimming pools or appurtenances must be located in the rear yard at a distance of at least ten feet from any property line Subd 14 Fences All swimming pools must be completely enclosed by a non - climbing fence All fence openings or points of entry into the pool area must be equipped with gates The fence and gates must be at least four feet in height and constructed of a minimum no 11 gauge, woven -wire mesh, corrosion -resistant material or other matenal approved by the building official All gates must be equipped with self -closing and self -latching devices placed at the top of the gate or otherwise be inaccessible to small children All fence -posts must be decay or corrosion -resistant and set in concrete bases or other suitable protection The openings between the bottom of the fence and the ground or other surface may not be more than four inches Subd 15 Safety equipment Every swimming pool must be equipped with one or more throwing buoys not more than 15 inches in diameter and having 60 feet of 3/16 of an inch manila line, or its equivalent, attached Subd 16 Aboveground swimming pools Ladders or stairs which are attached to or placed against the outside of aboveground tank type swimming pools having a depth of 24 inches or more must be removed from the outside of the pool when the pool is not being used In addition, aboveground pools are subject to the requirements of subdivisions 12, 13 and 14 of this section Subd 17 Public or semipublic swimming pools Swimming pools other than residential pools must be constructed and operated in conformance with standards for installation promulgated by the state board of health In addition, pnor t the beginning of any construction, a copy of the report prepared and issued by the state health department showing approval of the plans must be filed with the building official State law reference — Public pools, Minn Stat # 144 1222 Subd 18 Operation and maintenance Pool contractors shall instruct the pool owner in the operation and maintenance of the pool and its filtration and chlorination equipment and the procedures to be followed in prepanng the pool for winter (Code 1980, #33 02) • Map No. 01-202A 60 60 MINOR SUBDtVISION) DRAFT COMEMSTECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL ;I�,LB CITY AND COUNTY' I[. WEST SYCAMORE STREET S89' 19'43"E (VACATED) 49 Gentertine s150.ycomorrl Street • 30.0u (platt.d as Loco A tt0 N00°40' 1 7"E l''4' 150.52 m 150 (j l *� S89'19'43'�E [ 150.5 If - a- 4a SS S E g.‘ gtS E 150.52 m 150 r . i E p \ 6Y� r 150.52 m .�_ 150 r , J E �S' o T _ j�' `(`). 1jN150.52150rm 8 fg$ E as 'do - 88 O L 150.52 m :150 r r I /1/Nlt 150.51m 150 r to? ss o o gg 1-1 11 ---------- ;. m Ca Nwt' u+. Of A»/ irf South 3.00 Fort Of rei C..) f 4 Lot 12. Nook 11, C0OPERi'S * I1iON 0 E 28 150.52 m 150 r ,n 1 �,1 150.51 Nor* uo. a 1w.-- f +r3 • } -Aso isa.ssmrin mon'IoN G1150r Ccd 4 150.51 m 150 r 150 r 150.51 m WEST ST. ti O 150 r.. 150.51 m )66.M S89'19'43" E North tkw Of lb,/ n Sat 40.47 fog Of 4A, " wears AOOIAoo oo 150.51 m C • 150 r $E 8E �v !!"' Ili n j8_00 4 ocva o cto tT -s / 1 150 r 150.51 rn $E g a a 150.51 1 s" A Gutte s1n ei N89° 19 43 W — -- CROIX AVER Existing Bituminous 8 g cn (VACATED it ) Y� 15 Radius S Gutterline SURVEY FOR: Clark Nyberg 194 South Greeley Street, #102 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 8C ►1 : 1 Inch ex 50 Feet LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: PARCEL A Lot 7 and the south 49.47 feet of Lot 8, as measured at a right angle to the south line of said Lot 8, Block 11, COOPER'S ADDITION according to the Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater on file and of record in the office ot'the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. PARCEL B Lot 9 and that Part of Lot 8 lying north of the south 49.47 feet thereof as measured at a right angle to the south line of said Lot 8, Blau 11, COOPER'S ADDITION according to the Perfected Plat of the City ofStillwatcr on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County; Minnesota.- ALSO, the south 26.28 fan of Lot 10 as measured at a right angle to the south line ofasiid Lot 10, Bk t II, COOPER'S A TION according to thy, PARCEL( Lot 11 and that part of Lot 10 lying north of the south 26.28 fat as measured at a right angle to the south line of said Lot" I O and the south 3.09-feet.ot%t 12 as measured at a right angle to the south line of said Lot 12. -Block_ I I, COOPER'S ADDITION according to the Pafected Plat of the City ofStillwater re and of record in the office of the County Recorder. Washington County, Minnesota. PARCEL D Lot 12 lying north of the south 3.09 feet thereof as measured at a right angle to the south line of said Lot 12, Block 11, COOPER'S ADDITION according to the Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. ALSO, that part of vacated West Sycamore Street (platted as Lake Avenue) accruing to said Lot 12, COOPERS ADDITION according to the Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Present Zoning --- R8 Minimum Building Setback Requirements: 30 Foot --- Front Yard 10 Foot ----Side Yard 25 Foot ---- RearYard 30 Foot —=-- Comer Lot Street Side NOTES DENOTES RECORD DIMENSION DENOTES MEASURED DIMENSION ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM 1S ASSUMED DRAFT �� + -8UBJE'G`P431/01 TO art,ith I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1/AS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED OY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSI0111 AND THAT 1 iW- A DULY MOOED LAID SURVEYOR UNDER 1NE LAWS GF. 'ME STATE OF MINNE90TA. GAY14 L. 11MO1WY J. RAM NOTE: OFFICIAL C C ! • A> foL 0 r \ \ 1! 1-1 6 4 , ft- I \,, zeN r71 ce at:SA-1 AA^ SCALE: ri)If DATE: /0,4,/9 /of APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY REVISED /V/7 ,d1;404e Si . DRAWING NUMBER Ibio1/4 c4S / 4 SCALE: fit /IIPI DATE: I{� APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY REVISED T __ff t : f ) JY! 0)fio t DRAWING NUMBER -rPoi)4_5cd ..6,Reer Ltvel ?:k ic/Z tn%.a/ k-(9 . 1 C, IL. r NJ (-C e�� (3 - 2Y` L- fK /.5.1-r ,il y ‘AV i)'e f j e L/.0 SCALE: liiti 1 ' Z 1 1 0 DATE: ,i;2/61 Ju APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY, C REVISED lY 1,Lire st DRAWING NUMBER